The Dakota Access Pipeline, an oil pipeline which starts in North Dakota and will route to Illinois, has been marred by a steady stream of misinformation and rumor. As governor of North Dakota, I feel it is important to share the facts of how the route was permitted through our state, as well as our North Dakota law enforcement’s exemplary management of protesters who have made national headlines.

Recently, many around the world have come to know this project as simply “DAPL” and have used limited information shared through traditional and social media to form opinions about the pipeline, and North Dakota as a whole. Much of this information is neither accurate nor fair.

North Dakota’s connection to the pipeline began in 2014 when Energy Transfer Partners officially filed its application for corridor compatibility and route permit through our Public Service Commission. It is the job of our three-person elected PSC to handle all such matters according to state law. A 13-month review process included public input meetings which were held across the state. As a result of these meetings, the route was modified 140 times to ensure environmental safety, including a shift to follow an existing gas pipeline corridor so as not to create an entirely new pathway. The final route was legally approved and permitted by the state of North Dakota, the location for the crossing of the Missouri River was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the easement was forwarded to the assistant secretary of the Army for signature.

The USA Today Editorial Board called for the completion of the Dakota Access Pipeline in a piece published on December 5th.

According to the board’s piece, despite attempts to block the project, oil produced in North Dakota will not be kept in the ground.

“The issue of where to route pipelines is always going to be a sticking point. Native tribes are not the only ones who would prefer to not have them in or near their backyards. But pipelines fill a vital need for the economy and for America’s energy security, and therefore need to be built.

As for combating climate change, the ultimate goal of many environmental groups, taking on individual pipelines is not the answer. The answer is to impose costs on carbon emissions so polluters can’t keep using the atmosphere as a free dumping ground for greenhouse gases. That way, markets can figure out the best way to adapt.

Pipeline fights can make for a great spectacle. But, no matter which side wins, they will have little impact on the environment beyond their immediate environs.”

A recently published Wall Street Journal op-ed from Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota dispels many of inaccuracies being reported about the project and highlights the extensive process and review of the Dakota Access Pipeline project.

In the op-ed Congressman Cramer states the following facts:

This isn’t about tribal rights or protecting cultural resources. The pipeline does not cross any land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux. The land under discussion belongs to private owners and the federal government. To suggest that the Standing Rock tribe has the legal ability to block the pipeline is to turn America’s property rights upside down.

Two federal courts have rejected claims that the tribe wasn’t consulted. The project’s developer and the Army Corps made dozens of overtures to the Standing Rock Sioux over more than two years. Often these attempts were ignored or rejected, with the message that the tribe would only accept termination of the project.

Other tribes and parties did participate in the process. More than 50 tribes were consulted, and their concerns resulted in 140 adjustments to the pipeline’s route. The project’s developer and the Army Corps were clearly concerned about protecting tribal artifacts and cultural sites. Any claim otherwise is unsupported by the record. The pipeline’s route was also studied—and ultimately supported—by the North Dakota Public Service Commission (on which I formerly served), the State Historic Preservation Office, and multiple independent archaeologists.

This isn’t about water protection. Years before the pipeline was announced, the tribe was working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps to relocate its drinking-water intake. The new site sits roughly 70 miles downstream of where the pipeline is slated to cross the Missouri River. Notably, the new intake, according to the Bureau of Reclamation, will be 1.6 miles downstream of an elevated railroad bridge that carries tanker cars carrying crude oil.

This isn’t about the climate. The oil that will be shipped through the pipeline is already being produced. But right now it is transported in more carbon-intensive ways, such as by railroad or long-haul tanker truck. So trying to thwart the pipeline to reduce greenhouse gas could have the opposite effect.

What’s left that this issue could be about? Politics.

Unfortunately all the processes and laws in the world could not stop the politics of an outgoing administration attempting to cement a legacy. But the beauty of politics is that they are hardly permanent.

In 44 days a new presidential administration will have the opportunity to do the right thing; enforce the law, end a dangerous standoff, and release the final easement for Dakota Access to continue construction.

Respected fact checking website, Snopes.com responded on Wednesday to misguided rumors that the Dakota Access Pipeline was rerouted around Bismarck as a result of local opposition.

CLAIM: The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) was re-routed through the Standing Rock Reservation after Bismarck’s mostly-white residents refused to allow it near their water supply.

WHATS TRUE: The U.S Army Corps of Engineers originally considered a Dakota Access Pipeline route north of Bismarck but abandoned the idea, citing eleven miles of additional pipeline length and dozens more crossings.

WHATS FALSE: “Mostly white” residents of Bismarck did not refuse to accept the threat to their water supply, and the project was not subsequently forced upon tribes at Standing Rock because white people rejected the risk.

The post goes on to cite an article in the Bismarck Tribune that explains why the current route was always the preferred route:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the Bismarck route and concluded it was not a viable option for many reasons. One reason mentioned in the agency’s environmental assessment is the proximity to wellhead source water protection areas that are avoided to protect municipal water supply wells.

In addition, the Bismarck route would have been 11 miles longer with more road crossings and waterbody and wetland crossings. It also would have been difficult to stay 500 or more feet away from homes, as required by the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the corps states.

The Bismarck route also would have crossed an area considered by federal pipeline regulators as a “high consequence area,” which is an area determined to have the most significant adverse consequences in the event of a pipeline spill.

Bismarck Mayor Mike Seminary recently echoed these findings, saying that at no point did local officials discuss the alternate route north of the city.

“Bismarck has never been involved in that discussion. Not one policy maker, not one department head, not one city employee has ever been involved in a discussion with regards to a route north of Bismarck …. So move on from that subject. You are wrong and you are creating issues,” Seminary said during a November press conference.

In an article published in Bloomberg Businessweek, recently reviewed energy and economic analyses point to a significantly reduced cost to ship petroleum by pipeline rather than by railroad or truck. This is important because those few dollars difference in cost to energy companies directly relates to the opportunities for companies to expand operations and hire individuals from engineers to craft trades to develop the infrastructure necessary to develop North Dakota resources.

According to the article, “[u]nlike Texas, which has pumped oil for more than a century and is home to thousands of miles of pipelines, North Dakota never had a reason to build much energy infrastructure. As oil gushed out of remote areas miles from any town or pipeline, wildcatters, middlemen, and traders raced to get it out by truck, train, and barge. By 2015, 800,000 barrels of crude a day was being railed out of North Dakota. Moving oil by train costs a lot more than pumping it through a pipeline, but when world crude prices hovered around $100 a barrel—as they did for several years—there was enough profit to go around. Now that prices have fallen, those transportation costs have become critical. Refineries on the East Coast, once among the biggest buyers of Bakken crude, have reverted to importing foreign oil rather than paying to ship it halfway across the country.”

Despite the massive production available in North Dakota, the high cost of transportation has actually led some American refiners to import foreign oil, rather than use domestic supplies, because of the economic realities.

The key to closing that cost gap and reducing dependence is to construct the infrastructure necessary to make North Dakota oil economically viable for the long-term future. An important part of that infrastructure investment is the Dakota Access Pipeline.

According to data compiled from Valero and Bloomberg Intelligence, current costs to ship Bakken oil to refineries across the United States by rail can range as high as $10 per barrel – at roughly $50 per barrel, that’s 10% of the total price. The estimated cost of delivery of a barrel moved by the Dakota Access pipeline would fall to about $5 per barrel, creating long-term stability for producers, refiners, and ultimately, consumers.

With the development of the Dakota Access Pipeline, transportation costs would essentially be reduced by half. Imagine if you could shave 5% off the cost of a gallon of gas, and ensure that the gallon of gas wasn’t supporting a foreign government. Not only that, but by reducing the cost of transportation, opportunities for production increase allowing more North Dakotans the opportunity to work. Right now North Dakota’s major oil producing counties support on average approximately 10% of the state workforce, and that’s with only 38 oil and gas rigs operating in November of this year. Compare that to more than 200 rigs back in 2014.

Lean operation has made production more efficient, but reducing costs for producers allows for greater development and greater economic opportunity.

In an opinion piece published in The Hill by Bill Gerhard president of the Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council and Dawna Leitzke, executive director for the South Dakota Petroleum and Propane Marketers Association, the authors point out that for more than two years many people within the states where Dakota Access is being constructed have actually supported the project.

In the piece Mr. Gerhard and Ms. Leitzke write: “In recent weeks, a growing amount of media attention has been focused on the ongoing protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota. Reports of trespassing, arson, and attempted murder are deeply troubling. Equally worrisome is the protest’s rapid spreading from North Dakota into South Dakota, Iowa and other states – a trend that promises only to grow unless law and order are restored to the region. Unfortunately, the voices of those who live in the states where the pipeline is being constructed are not being heard, which is why we’d like to share our perspective.”

We’ve noted the presence of anti-development activists before among the protesters at Standing Rock, and often it’s their activities that the media covers.

Local voices matter too, public support and a need for this project led to the Dakota Access Pipeline’s approval by four separate state utility regulators.

Based on the escalation in violence at the anti-Dakota Access protests, one would think that Dakota Access offered nothing to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and purposefully targeted their lands.

Far from it in fact.

Not only does the Dakota Access Pipeline not cross Standing Rock reservation land, nor does it cross historical lands signed under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, but Dakota Access actively surveyed the land alongside efforts from the State Historical Preservation Office for cultural artifacts, and purposefully routed their pipeline alongside an existing pipeline so that there was minimal chance of an encounter with an undocumented archaeological or cultural site.

A Daily Caller article also highlights offers from developers of the Dakota Access Pipeline to install water quality sensors and construction of a fresh water storage facility.

According to a report published earlier in the Washington Examiner, Dakota Access also offered the tribe emergency vehicles in the event the pipeline ruptured. It wasn’t enough. The tribe demanded more.

Despite the claims of protesters, Dakota Access has in fact made good-faith efforts for consultation and respected the sensitivities of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. However, it has become more and more clear as protests have escalated that there never was a Standing Rock negotiating platform, only an attempt to stymie the project.

Similar to the approach towards the issuance of a Lake Oahe easement, the Obama Administration has continued its do-nothing strategy with regard to its enforcement of federal law toward protesters and no assistance for local law enforcement.

According to an article in Inside Sources, because the protester encampments are on federal land, state officials cannot evict the protesters, no matter how violent they become. Now, as they wait for a final decision on the pipeline, the state of North Dakota is forced to spend millions to allow the protests to continue.

The result has been confrontations between activists and members of law enforcement attempting to protect private property. Protesters have twice attempted to assault law enforcement across a bridge on 1806 over the Backwater which has required law enforcement to use force to repel the mob.

If this is what President Obama meant when he said he would “let the situation play out,” then inauguration day can’t come soon enough.

In a spate of protester violence over the weekend, members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their environmentalist allies again launched an assault on law enforcement in Morton County in an attempt to illegally occupy private property resulting in a confrontation with police.

Protesters are now mainly located on land south of the Cannon Ball River, but have erected barricades to prevent law enforcement from crossing a bridge over the Backwater which leads to the main protest camps. From there they amassed in an attempt to reach the site where Dakota Access construction equipment and workers are located.

This recent action sadly does not come as a surprise. The fires set by protesters this weekend to inhibit law enforcement activities are not new images.

In light of this rapidly deteriorating security situation the MAIN Coalition is incredulous at the lack of federal response from Washington, who has until today refused aid to North Dakota law enforcement. By delaying the issuance of the necessary easement for Dakota Access to cross Lake Oahe, despite a finding of No Significant Impact by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal government has created an environment where protest escalation and further violence is allowed to flourish. At this late stage, despite a small influx of Customs and Border Patrol agents, without the issuance of an easement, we fear that we can only expect more of the same.

In a letter addressed to President Obama, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) along with 21 other Democratic members of the House of Representatives again presented another argument riddled with misinformation and emotion rather than the on-the-ground facts concerning the ongoing Dakota Access Pipeline protests.

The most important point in this letter to once again debunk is that at no point does this pipeline cross Standing Rock Sioux land. Period.

The current route not only parallels an existing pipeline, The Northern Border Pipeline, as well as an electrical transmission line, but the route was specifically selected because the area had already been surveyed for cultural and archaeological artifacts. Thus the land Dakota Access will run underneath has already been excavated, at least twice, leaving little chance of an encounter with an unknown site. Additionally, the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office found that no articles or items of cultural significance were within the pipeline construction corridor.

The federal response to the actions of the protesters has been disappointing. Following an extensive and thorough two year review, including analysis by the state of North Dakota as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, political decision makers have forced the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to delay the final easement approval following the onset of illegal protest activity. Though the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe had the opportunity to voice their comments and concerns during the regulatory processes in North Dakota, South Dakota, and throughout the public review and comment process for the Corps, they failed to do so, and are now holding up a legally permitted infrastructure project.

Everyone has a right to peaceful assembly, and to freely speak their mind. But the actions in Morton County have far exceeded any reasonable litmus test for what constitutes free speech. The Federal Government’s inaction continues to create and foster an environment that is hostile and unfair to local community members and law enforcement officers who call the area home.

News

The Dakota Access Pipeline, an oil pipeline which starts in North Dakota and will route to Illinois, has been marred by a steady stream of misinformation and rumor. As governor of North Dakota, I feel it is important to share the facts of how the route was permitted through our state, as well as our […]

The Dakota Access Pipeline, an oil pipeline which starts in North Dakota and will route to Illinois, has been marred by a steady stream of misinformation and rumor. As governor of North Dakota, I feel it is important to share the facts of how the route was permitted through our state, as well as our […]

The Dakota Access Pipeline, an oil pipeline which starts in North Dakota and will route to Illinois, has been marred by a steady stream of misinformation and rumor. As governor of North Dakota, I feel it is important to share the facts of how the route was permitted through our state, as well as our […]